Adobe Issues Final Linux Flash Player Release

[Temar]

They've changed a lot of the "under the hood" options and hidden them more from the user (mainly the advanced options that disable most of Google "tracking" features)...

Please provide examples or is this just the usual anti-Google FUD?

[Gusar]

That tells me everything about your knowledgment of Chrome's internals... Have you at least tried latest Chrome dev?

19.0.1068.1 is the last Chromium I compiled. You click "Show Advanced Settings" and it's all there in the Privacy section that appears. What's hidden about that? It's one click and the options are there. Then, for the fine-grained site-specific settings you merely click on "Content settings" at the top of that Privacy section. So as you can see, my "knowledgment" of things is quite fine. Saying that the browser is "hiding things" and "making it harder" to disable them is a very gross exaggeration.

p.s.: Btw, I used chrome for almost 2 years before they've changed their ToS

What the heck does the ToS for their services have to do with the browser?? That's what I don't get here. The ToS change affects *everyone*, regardless of browser. If you don't like the ToS, you drop your Google account and/or stop using Google stuff completely. Which browser you use is a totally separate thing from that.

Like I've already said - you're mixing stuff up that has no connection. So, I guess I am replying with an "are u mad" attitude. But, before I did so, I *did* think about it.

[evolution]

Last Reply...

PS. I don't even use Chrome, so this isn't about me trying to defend my favorite browser or something. I check it out every now and then, but my main browser remains Firefox. It's just that I'm trying to get to the bottom of this "Chrome is invading your privacy" meme. And what do I get? A person saying they believe it is so based on... umm...

That tells me everything about your knowledgment of Chrome's internals... Have you at least tried latest Chrome dev? They've changed a lot of the "under the hood" options and hidden them more from the user (mainly the advanced options that disable most of Google "tracking" features)...

About Chromium, well, if you have a system with Low-Mem / Resources, compiling/using it is not clearly an option... I have an old P4 with 1GB RAM and currently the only browser that works for me is Opera + Flash (sometimes with HTML5 I've some problems). Try Chromium and see it crashing in front of you... It's unusable...

Cheers

p.s.: Btw, I used Chrome (on a old laptop) for almost 2 years before they've changed their ToS... Plus, if you're going to reply to me with a "are u mad" attitude, think before you do it...

[Gusar]

Well, if you don't believe Google tracks you even if you've ceased with them

Emm, read my post again, I directly acknowledged Google still tracks you even without an account.

but I still believe Google tracks Chrome users...

And now you've entered crazyville. You believe this... based on what?

and on each release, they make things harder to disable certain "privacy" options...

Provide specific examples, please. Because if anything, over time they've been adding more fine-grained site-specific controls.

For me Chromium gives lot of bugs and doesn't allow me to watch online videos in various sites.

You mean bugs Chrome doesn't have? That's not possible, Chrome *is* Chromium basically, the few additional things Chrome has don't affect the browser engine. As for videos, if you mean h264 in html5, just compile Chromium properly. If you mean anything else, I don't see how Chrome vs. Chromium makes a difference.

PS. I don't even use Chrome, so this isn't about me trying to defend my favorite browser or something. I check it out every now and then, but my main browser remains Firefox. It's just that I'm trying to get to the bottom of this "Chrome is invading your privacy" meme. And what do I get? A person saying they believe it is so based on... umm...

[Temar]

Anyone who thought flash would ever thrive on linux was surely deluded.

Flash didn't need to thrive on Linux, the status quo we had was sufficient.

Adobe, like everyone else, do what MS say. End of story.

You have a very simple view of the world.

Linux was *always* their main enemy. Always and forever, because it utterly destroys their business model of having people tied and dependent like crack whores, paying through the nose for each new "advance".

Linux is not Adobe's enemy and certainly not their main enemy. Neither the free Flash implementations nor Gimp are a real threat to Adobe products. When I read statements such as yours, I wonder if you ever had to pay your own rent or even had a real job. Adobe is just a company which tries to make money. Selling their products is the only way to make money, because support-based business models just don't work with the products Adobe offers. Noone would buy support for their creative suite.

[gordboy]

Flash on linux was always doomed

Anyone who thought flash would ever thrive on linux was surely deluded.

Adobe, like everyone else, do what MS say. End of story.

Linux was *always* their main enemy. Always and forever, because it utterly destroys their business model of having people tied and dependent like crack whores, paying through the nose for each new "advance".

Expect skype to follow suit very shortly.

[evolution]

@Gusar:

[OFFTOPIC] Well, if you don't believe Google tracks you even if you've ceased with them, you should look at this... I can confirm (you can also try it too, if you don't have a Google account) after doing some searches about certain theme(s) they put in first place what you hit most... But no, Google is not "evil", it simply generates revenue selling to advertisers what you search... Even if you don't have an account...

About Chrome, well, I'm geek enough to change the options to track me the less they can, but I still believe Google tracks Chrome users... and on each release, they make things harder to disable certain "privacy" options...

For me Chromium gives lot of bugs and doesn't allow me to watch online videos in various sites. Furthermore, consumes more memory than Firefox/Opera.

About the fact "I've nothing to hide", sorry, but yotambien already said it all... [/OFFTOPIC]

Well, I'll stop talk in this thread... I'm threadjacking it and not saying anything useful here... I already gave my point of view...

Cheers

[yotambien]

this is the same stupid issue of people fearing their governments watching their every move - sure ethically they have no right to do that but if you aren't doing anything wrong, if you don't have anyone who is "after you", and if you've got nothing to hide then why do you care? if you're paranoid and a criminal in some way (whether you've been arrested or not) or have something to be ashamed of then maybe you should have thought about your actions before doing them in the first place.

I've got nothing to hide, schmidtbag!

[Gusar]

I didn't want to have a social network site associated with my (ex) Google Account (In this point, I'm more like Stallman ), so I ceased using Chrome/having a Google Account before the change of ToS...

You're mixing two things here - the browser, and the google account. If you dropped your account, it doesn't matter which browser you use, Google won't be tracking you (well, they still will to the extent they can without you having an account). If you kept the account, you'd be tracked no matter which browser you use. So what sense did changing browsers have? None, really. It's all about the account.

c) Maybe you should look at the SRWare Iron vs Chromium comparison

All "privacy invading" features are marked there as "depending on configuration"? So just go to Chrome's options and turn that stuff off, and voila, privacy issues solved, no separate browser needed. And if you're worried about the installation-id, use Chromium instead of Chrome. The only benefit of Iron then, is the built in ad-blocker. Which you can add to Chrome/Chromium with an extension.

So really, this "Chrome attacks my privacy" thing is nonsense. All the options that really do send personally identifiable stuff to google can be quickly turned off. And, funny thing, Firefox by default sends stuff to Google too if you use the search bar! You have to right-click the bar and un-tick "Show Suggestions" if you don't want that. But somehow there aren't people proclaiming "Firefox is attacking my privacy". Also, about Iron, this is quite an interesting read.


Now, to actually address the topic of this thread... It's nice to see there are people who realize Flash won't go away any time soon, as it's used for a lot more than just youtube/other videos. Yeah it's cool proclaiming the death of it, or saying "who needs it" and "nothing of value was lost" and such. But those are idealistic views that aren't aligned with reality. Just one example, when do you think Facebook will replace all their flash games with html5 variants? Now you may not be on Facebook, I'm not either, but millions of people are, and they're playing those games.

Flash is eeeeeevil. There's not one Linux version that would work completely ok, every single version has at least one issue or another. But it's still quite entrenched in the web, so for now, it's a necessary evil. Proclamations of it's death are very, very premature.

[ChrisXY]

h264 video will likely not be supported by Firefox under Linux. They are only able to do so on systems where the OS provides the licensed decoder.

You may have missed that they are working on using gstreamer for <video>: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bu...id=422540#c257
That still implies you should have legal h.264 support in gstreamer, but doesn't require....